#1:
---
Rick Santorum just advocated emplyers getting away from offering their employees health insurance. Just another way for them to invest less in us, yet still expect us to do a good job for them. Sha, as if. Sure, go with that, Rick. Watch more of America in turn be less willing to invest themselves in their jobs for their employers.

Sarge, actually, in the developed world (and regarding the handling of health care, the US is not quite in that group), employers mostly don't pay for healthcare (directly anyway), as most countries have a single payer system where the costs are integrated into the generalized tax base instead of the employer.

That can help employers be more competitive in the global market place. Of course those countries DO have health care programs which are not 'employee centric'.

The unfortunate thing for Santorum (and his Teapublican ilk), is that they would move toward a totally for profit health care system where those who can afford health care, pay for it, and those who don't -- don't get it.

#2:
---
Activist judges on The Supreme Court rule you can be ... searched ... when arrested for any level of violation.
Bur I'll bet they'd be very upset if searcher and searchee began a relationship after such an intimate search.
This is from the group that brought you "Corporations are people" and SuperPACs.

It used to be the cry of the right against activist judges. Since Gore v Bush, the shoe has moved to the other foot and now the true activist legislative judicial decisions are coming from Republican judges.

Misunderstanding about the Healthcare Act is widespread, to say the least! Distortion and misinformation is readily available to anyone of any persuasion. Take a position, take any position and that position is subject to immediate, vociferous and "irrefutable" verification. In a manner of speaking, the search for healthcare truth is a search for terrestrial intelligence.

If and when the healthcare issue makes contact with terrestrial intelligence there will be no healthcare issue! The health insurance industry may have to adjust to market based profits. However, health "insurance" issues (profit or otherwise) are not "healthcare" issues! A popular "movement" to disjoin one from the other would be a welcome sign of terrestrial intelligence.

A census is inherently inaccurate. There has to be canvassing and it will still be inaccurate since where people live is fluid and uncertain. This is especially true in the age of illegals and migrants.

Better to take a poll and divide up districts by other numbers ( registered voters, tax rolls, jury lists, school populations etc)

A census is inherently inaccurate. There has to be canvassing and it will still be inaccurate since where people live is fluid and uncertain. This is especially true in the age of illegals and migrants.

Better to take a poll and divide up districts by other numbers ( registered voters, tax rolls, jury lists, school populations etc)

William, I am surprised you have misread Guy's question.
Data gathering, which is what is done by the canvassers, is done.
Guy is also not asking about the flaws of our continued attempts to call it a census.
He is asking, why, 2 years after the data has been gathered, the analysis is not complete.

How is requiring voters to present a state issued identification card in order to vote preventing minorities from voting?

A state issued ID card doesn't prevent anyone from voting . . . unless they don't have one! An ID card (photo or otherwise) is normally acquired as a consequence of driving a car or for some other purpose not related to voting. However, some people fall outside the norm and do not have an acceptable form of identification.

Curiously, a "Voter Registration Card" is not an acceptable ID for voting in some states. Therein lies the problem. Registration ID should be available as a "Voter Information Card" or a "Voter Identification Card" as needed by individual voters. Supervisors of Elections should be required (by state law) to meet this need.

Guy, it isn't the requirement for an identification that bothers me -- that's fine, it is the differential procedures (from state to state) for obtaining that identification that is a source of concern. In some states the process is simple, straightforward and neither expensive nor time consuming. In other states, not so much.

Head Scratcher #(n+1)

How is requiring voters to present a state issued identification card in order to vote preventing minorities from voting?

Guy, in addition to Sarge's explanation, you need to consider the response from some of your libertarian buddies to the imposition of questions from the 'blue hats'. Some of those folks might also run afoul of state election identification requirements.

Head Scratcher #(n+1)

In today's age of computing technology, how come the US Census Bureau has *still* not completed the 2010 census?